Bitcoin Forum
January 19, 2019, 05:20:41 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 [1102] 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2028311 times)
Wekkel
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100
Merit: 1124


yes


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 07:55:17 AM
 #22021

Good grief that was long winded. Can we get a tldr concise version for the viewers or those that couldn't bare it? I read most of it and scanned the rest but most of the pricing charts were just lol boring and just plain Roll Eyes.

The article itself has a 'conclusion'. The author first sets up a theoretical framework for valuation and then applies it to Bitcoin. My interpretation is that reasonable price expectations  until 2014 are between $10k and $300k, assuming the network continuous to grow exponentially.

           ▀██▄ ▄██▀
            ▐█████▌
           ▄███▀███▄
         ▄████▄  ▀███▄
       ▄███▀ ▀██▄  ▀███▄
     ▄███▀  ▄█████▄  ▀███▄
   ▄███▀  ▄███▀ ▀███▄  ▀███▄
  ███▀  ▄████▌   ▐████▄  ▀███
 ███   ██▀  ██▄ ▄██  ▀██   ███
███   ███  ███   ███  ███   ███
███   ███   ███████   ███   ███
 ███   ███▄▄       ▄▄███   ███
  ███▄   ▀▀█████████▀▀   ▄███
   ▀████▄▄           ▄▄████▀
      ▀▀███████████████▀▀
DeepOnion
.Anonymous and Untraceable.
ANN  Whitepaper  Facebook  Twitter  Telegram  Discord 





      ▄▄██████████▄▄
    ▄███▀▀      ▀▀█▀   ▄▄
   ███▀              ▄███
  ███              ▄███▀   ▄▄
 ███▌  ▄▄▄▄      ▄███▀   ▄███
▐███  ██████   ▄███▀   ▄███▀
███▌ ███  ███▄███▀   ▄███▀
███▌ ███   ████▀   ▄███▀
███▌  ███   █▀   ▄███▀  ███
▐███   ███     ▄███▀   ███
 ███▌   ███  ▄███▀     ███
  ███    ██████▀      ███
   ███▄             ▄███
    ▀███▄▄       ▄▄███▀
      ▀▀███████████▀▀
.
1547875241
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1547875241

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1547875241
Reply with quote  #2

1547875241
Report to moderator
1547875241
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1547875241

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1547875241
Reply with quote  #2

1547875241
Report to moderator
1547875241
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1547875241

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1547875241
Reply with quote  #2

1547875241
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
solex
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1078
Merit: 1000


100 satoshis -> ISO code


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 08:09:08 AM
 #22022

The article itself has a 'conclusion'. The author first sets up a theoretical framework for valuation and then applies it to Bitcoin. My interpretation is that reasonable price expectations  until 2014 are between $10k and $300k, assuming the network continuous to grow exponentially.

between $10k and $300k by 2024 maybe?

shields
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 164
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 11:57:06 AM
 #22023

Good grief that was long winded. Can we get a tldr concise version for the viewers or those that couldn't bare it? I read most of it and scanned the rest but most of the pricing charts were just lol boring and just plain Roll Eyes.

The article itself has a 'conclusion'. The author first sets up a theoretical framework for valuation and then applies it to Bitcoin. My interpretation is that reasonable price expectations  until 2014 are between $10k and $300k, assuming the network continuous to grow exponentially.

I skimmed over it, but I believe his fatal flaw that leads to the ridiculously high estimates is assuming the price at any point in time does not already price in expected future growth.

If you liked this post -> 1KRYhandiYsjecZw7mtdLnoeuKUYoGRkH4
Wekkel
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100
Merit: 1124


yes


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 12:18:39 PM
 #22024

I meant 2024 indeed. The author sees no practical value in the  non-log calculations and made some rough assumptions on the future value enclosed in Bitcoin's present value. Just read it entirely, it is pretty well thought out.

           ▀██▄ ▄██▀
            ▐█████▌
           ▄███▀███▄
         ▄████▄  ▀███▄
       ▄███▀ ▀██▄  ▀███▄
     ▄███▀  ▄█████▄  ▀███▄
   ▄███▀  ▄███▀ ▀███▄  ▀███▄
  ███▀  ▄████▌   ▐████▄  ▀███
 ███   ██▀  ██▄ ▄██  ▀██   ███
███   ███  ███   ███  ███   ███
███   ███   ███████   ███   ███
 ███   ███▄▄       ▄▄███   ███
  ███▄   ▀▀█████████▀▀   ▄███
   ▀████▄▄           ▄▄████▀
      ▀▀███████████████▀▀
DeepOnion
.Anonymous and Untraceable.
ANN  Whitepaper  Facebook  Twitter  Telegram  Discord 





      ▄▄██████████▄▄
    ▄███▀▀      ▀▀█▀   ▄▄
   ███▀              ▄███
  ███              ▄███▀   ▄▄
 ███▌  ▄▄▄▄      ▄███▀   ▄███
▐███  ██████   ▄███▀   ▄███▀
███▌ ███  ███▄███▀   ▄███▀
███▌ ███   ████▀   ▄███▀
███▌  ███   █▀   ▄███▀  ███
▐███   ███     ▄███▀   ███
 ███▌   ███  ▄███▀     ███
  ███    ██████▀      ███
   ███▄             ▄███
    ▀███▄▄       ▄▄███▀
      ▀▀███████████▀▀
.
HarmonLi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350
Merit: 250


Honest 80s business!


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 12:21:32 PM
 #22025

I meant 2024 indeed. The author sees no practical value in the  non-log calculations and made some rough assumptions on the future value enclosed in Bitcoin's present value. Just read it entirely, it is pretty well thought out.

Bitcoin is effectively a currency or asset born to use a log scale, after all. I haven't seen many real world examples that follow an exponential growth as well as Bitcoin does Cheesy

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 01:19:30 PM
 #22026

Yowser!

Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
Backatchya2
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 01:40:53 PM
 #22027

Yowser!

Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
O RLY?



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CATZtaIWMAAQZpU.png


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CATZ1PeWgAAz36h.png







I chose to show an all time chart because you don't want me to post the 2014 chart comparing the two, trust me.
markj113
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2114
Merit: 1040



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 02:50:55 PM
 #22028

Spike in gold price due to $1.2 billion bid, someone has been splashing the cash -

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-17/gold-spikes-sudden-12-billion-bid

Maybe the Irish finance minister -

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-16/irish-finance-minister-dumps-stocks-buys-gold






░░░░░░░░░▀▀▀█████████
░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░████████
░░░░▄███████▄░░░░████████
░░░░███████████░░░░██████
░░░▀███████████░░░░████░░
███▄░░░░░░░░░░▀████░░░███░░██
█████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████░░░██░░██
█████████████▄░░████░░░░░
░░█████████████░░█████
░░░░█████████▀░░░██████▌
░░░░░░░▀▀▀▀░░░░▄████████▌
░░░░░░░░░░▄▄▄▄███████
SuperNET.org
..BarterDEX..
.
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
DECENTRALIZED CRYPTOCURRENCY EXCHANGE
Developed to Unite Coin Communities | ✔ SECURE ✔ FREE ✔ VISIBILITY ✔ EASY INTEGRATION |

▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬

Goldinger
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 05:28:22 PM
Last edit: March 17, 2015, 06:02:57 PM by Goldinger
 #22029

Yowser!

Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
O RLY?



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CATZtaIWMAAQZpU.png


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CATZ1PeWgAAz36h.png







I chose to show an all time chart because you don't want me to post the 2014 chart comparing the two, trust me.
Yeah can't say "gold collapsing bitcoin up"...
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 06:10:34 PM
 #22030

Yowser!

Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
O RLY?














I chose to show an all time chart because you don't want me to post the 2014 chart comparing the two, trust me.
Yeah can't say "gold collapsing bitcoin up"...

i absolutely can.  there's been several goldbugs like you who have held me to a higher standard of using the original posting date of this thread or its precursor as a start point to measure the success or failure of this call.  and this was when the outcome wasn't so clear.  that is a reasonable request, unlike the cherry picking timeframes you are doing.  when done in this manner, Bitcoin has killed gold in terms of relative performance.
lunarboy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 544
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 06:22:29 PM
 #22031

Funniest story in the press at the moment  Grin

US pissed at the Brits for joining the Chinese-led Asian development bank.

now Australia France and Germany Also join in on the joke.

That Dollar is starting to smell a little Whiffy   Wink

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31921011
Bagatell
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 722
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 06:29:56 PM
 #22032

Funniest story in the press at the moment  Grin

US pissed at the Brits for joining the Chinese-led Asian development bank.

now Australia France and Germany Also join in on the joke.

That Dollar is starting to smell a little Whiffy   Wink

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31921011

Rats and a sinking ship.
tyrexs
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 17, 2015, 06:37:55 PM
 #22033

gold stable in this week, maybe can up and bitcoin ready to drop i guess

NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1001


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
March 17, 2015, 08:00:09 PM
 #22034

when you say "just sit back with their cold storage coins and see which fork wins out", you're essentially saying the forks are close in properties (or at least difficult to choose between).

No I'm kind of saying the opposite. If they are not close in properties then one will quickly win out, and I think we all agree that is not a problem at all. It isn't a problem for passive participants, nor active ones.

The minority of cases where the choice is more difficult, you basically have two choices. One is to pick one or the other (including status quo) essentially by fiat, or recognize that these decisions are difficult and let a market sort it out. I argue it is more important to do that now, when Bitcoin is tiny, rather than suffer long term from having made the wrong choice earlier when the costs of change were relatively insignificant.

I don't think we disagree that stability is important, I just think that stability at the multi-trillion dollar cap scale is better served by letting things sort out robustly and dynamically at the billion dollar scale, even if that introduces more risk short term (indeed that risk is what allows it to happen).

Take this whole block size thing. It's pretty clear no consensus will ever be reached. Doing nothing is an arbitrary decision. Making a change to 20 MB or 20 MB + {some growth rate} is also arbitrary. We're not going to "figure this out." I say let the market play out with the toy system we have today and whichever system thrives will be far stronger at the trillion dollar scale.
...

I have a different opinion on this.  I think we can and will "figure this out", once a commitment is made to doing just that.  This is my fundamental disagreement with Gavin's proposal.  It not only makes no attempt to figure it out, it takes away the impetus to do so for 20 years, when we have had Bitcoin for only a third of that time.  This is what makes it such a jaw-droppingly misguided proposal unworthy of someone in his position.

Instead we are expected to undertake new risks without even the promise of the improvements needed to resolve the issue in either a long term manner (using a measured rate based on block-size need) or a permanent manner (removal of the limit based on it no longer being necessary). 

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2002
Merit: 1065



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 09:22:34 PM
 #22035

when you say "just sit back with their cold storage coins and see which fork wins out", you're essentially saying the forks are close in properties (or at least difficult to choose between).

No I'm kind of saying the opposite. If they are not close in properties then one will quickly win out, and I think we all agree that is not a problem at all. It isn't a problem for passive participants, nor active ones.

The minority of cases where the choice is more difficult, you basically have two choices. One is to pick one or the other (including status quo) essentially by fiat, or recognize that these decisions are difficult and let a market sort it out. I argue it is more important to do that now, when Bitcoin is tiny, rather than suffer long term from having made the wrong choice earlier when the costs of change were relatively insignificant.

I don't think we disagree that stability is important, I just think that stability at the multi-trillion dollar cap scale is better served by letting things sort out robustly and dynamically at the billion dollar scale, even if that introduces more risk short term (indeed that risk is what allows it to happen).

Take this whole block size thing. It's pretty clear no consensus will ever be reached. Doing nothing is an arbitrary decision. Making a change to 20 MB or 20 MB + {some growth rate} is also arbitrary. We're not going to "figure this out." I say let the market play out with the toy system we have today and whichever system thrives will be far stronger at the trillion dollar scale.
...

I have a different opinion on this.  I think we can and will "figure this out", once a commitment is made to doing just that.  This is my fundamental disagreement with Gavin's proposal.  It not only makes no attempt to figure it out, it takes away the impetus to do so for 20 years, when we have had Bitcoin for only a third of that time.  This is what makes it such a jaw-droppingly misguided proposal unworthy of someone in his position.

Instead we are expected to undertake new risks without even the promise of the improvements needed to resolve the issue in either a long term manner (using a measured rate based on block-size need) or a permanent manner (removal of the limit based on it no longer being necessary). 

Fair point. It may be that an effort at a better developed proposal would pay off in terms of consensus to implement it. I'm not sure about that given the conflicting and increasingly entrenched interests, but it's possible for sure.

mrhelpful
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1002



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 09:36:14 PM
 #22036

does anyone know where to buy the legit physical gold with the serial # etc.

or you guys just go to the bank and ask you`d like to convert this from your dollars and they give you a brick?
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 10:57:59 PM
 #22037

JR,

what's up with Odom leaving Monetas?
explorer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1568
Merit: 1126



View Profile
March 17, 2015, 11:39:38 PM
 #22038

does anyone know where to buy the legit physical gold with the serial # etc.

or you guys just go to the bank and ask you`d like to convert this from your dollars and they give you a brick?
I guess it depends where you are and how much you want to buy.  I go to the local precious metals dealer, or mail order from major dealers such as SGB or Border Gold.  I would never ever deal with a bank.  YMMV
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400
Merit: 1006



View Profile WWW
March 18, 2015, 12:13:50 AM
 #22039

JR,

what's up with Odom leaving Monetas?
I only know one side of the story right now, so I can't really say.
Zangelbert Bingledack
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1036
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 18, 2015, 01:57:47 AM
 #22040

My "economic majority" phrasing becomes a little confusing here because we must continually ask, "A majority among whom?" A large enough minority with enough difference of opinion from the majority will break away and become the economic majority of a community of people who agree with their values. There are still reasons why each little economic community with varying beliefs about ideal money will not necessarily fork off: size is an advantage, voice can still work if the minority makes convincing arguments, etc.

Here is where I personally think this runs into problems. Again I'll use the gold default as a historical example. Here after FDR defaulted it was perfectly possible for a minority of people to refuse the new fiat system and still transact with each other using the old system (physical gold). The problem was the minority of people (gold bugs) was too small to be effective, they were marginalized and the majority of the world moved on without them.

I don't think the "community of people who agree with their values" will necessarily be large enough, if history is any guide (which I believe it is).

It wasn't possible for the minority to transact in gold, because of the government ban on gold possession from 1933 through 1974. Especially by 1975 it was far more cumbersome to transact in gold than to use the established banking and new credit card system.

In the historical case, once again, the "exit" dynamic was very seriously hindered. In Bitcoin it isn't.

The easier and more common it is to change bitcointhis community's economic majority ledger, the easier it is for a demographically elected government (or any gov) to co-opt bitcointhis community's economic majority ledger.

Here's the semantic issue rearing its head. If you change it to my phrasing it sounds incorrect, doesn't it? The economic majority of the people in Bitcoin now prefer the system as it is, without government modification. The government can fork it however it wants, and it may get the majority of US citizens to go along with it, but this economic majority (most current bitcoiners) will go on using Bitcoin Classic. The dark markets will go on using Bitcoin Classic. Everyone who wants to offshore their wealth will go on using Bitcoin Classic. Hard money folks who understand Bitcoin will go on using Bitcoin Classic.

This thread started with a statement that making bitcoin easy to fork often will be a good thing. My argument is be careful what you wish for because it there are powerful forces which will try to change it into something against it's founding principles.

Forking Bitcoin Classic is not changing Bitcoin Classic. It is making a competing system with, in this case, neutered features. Why would those who are interested in Bitcoin precisely for the features the government doesn't like be willing to jump ship to the government-approved version?

This is why I stated I prefer that bitcoin remains a rules based system as much as possible outside of the influence of man. The more we enable forking to be common, the more that breaks down and the easier it become for governments to push regulation/etc in.

Bitcoin is a consensus-based system where the consensus is about a set of rules. It is not fundamentally a rules-based or math-based system. It is whatever this economic majority agrees on. No one is bound to use Bitcoin Classic over a fork, and vice versa. It's impossible for it to be unforkable without being closed source and centralized.

Also, it's not that forking should be common, it's that it should be easy to do. Just because it's easy to fork it doesn't imply it will happen often. Network effects, among other things, prevent forking over smaller issues.

In summary, I still see absolutely no danger or concern. So far I think it's entirely a case of confusing terminology and the counterintuitive aspects of fully forkable systems.
Pages: « 1 ... 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 [1102] 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 ... 1558 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Bitcointalk.org is not available or authorized for sale. Do not believe any fake listings.
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!